Ved Prakash Uppal v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Om, in which, the learned Assistant Collector First Class/SDM, Sadar Dehradun passed an order dated

14.09.2009 restraining the parties from creating any third party right over the property bearing old Khasra No.316, 302, 301, 300, New Khasra No.396 admeasuring 0.279 Hectares and Khasra No.390-Ka admeasuring 0.092 Hectares in total 0.371 Hectares. Inspite of interim order dated 14.09.2009, a sale deed was executed by respondent No.3-Komal Prakash in favour of respondent No.2-Ratan Singh. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit bearing case No.368 of 2013 Ved Prakash Vs. Subhash Chandra and Others, for declaring the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.2 as null and void, wherein, an interim order dated

09.04.2018 was passed directing the parties to maintain status quo. However, one mutation application was filed by the subsequent purchaser i.e. respondent No.2 before learned Tehsildar, Sadar, Dehradun bearing Mutation Case No.3544 of 2013, wherein, objections were filed by the petitioner.

3. On 21.01.2015, learned Assistant Collector First Class has taken Suo Moto Cognizance of the case filed by petitioner under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and dismissed the said case of petitioner. Against it, petitioner has preferred a Revision No.118 of 2014-15 Ved Prakash Vs. Komal Prakash and Others, which was allowed by setting aside the order dated

21.01.2015 and the matter was remanded to be heard afresh. Meanwhile, a registered deed was executed 2 between the family members of petitioner and the matter was settled, therefore, the suit filed by the petitioner was not contested and eventually on 25.11.2019 it was dismissed for default. Meanwhile, the mutation case which was filed by the subsequent purchaser was proceeded and on 02.11.2022, an earlier order dated

20.08.2013, whereby the name of Shri Ratan Singh was mutated, was confirmed.

4. The said order was passed without hearing the petitioner. After knowing about the said order, petitioner immediately preferred a revision No.27 of 2022-23 Ved Prakash Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr., before the learned Court of Board of Revenue, Dehradun, specifically pleading the abovementioned facts and furthermore mentioning the O.S. No.368 of 2013 for declaring the sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 as null and void. Vide impugned order dated 05.03.2025, learned Chairman, Board of Revenue, Dehradun, has rejected the revision. Thus, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Chairman, Board of Revenue has rejected the revision in a cursory manner without going into the details and has wrongly held that no suit for cancellation of sale deed is pending before any competent forum. He further submits that the impugned order dated 02.11.2022 was passed without hearing the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner however admits that the mutation proceedings are summary in nature but contends that if the impugned orders are not set aside, then it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. He further submits that a Civil Suit is 3 pending before Civil Court and therefore, the impugned order is nothing but a result of non-application of mind and if it is not set aside, it would cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is a settled principle of law that a person should be given reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing any order impugned which has not been done in the present case.

8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has drawn the attention of this Court to a judgment dated 01.08.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPMS No.1448 of 2024 Ashutosh Sharma and Another Vs. Madhav Samarpan Samiti, whereby, the said writ petition was dismissed. He also relied on few judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court viz. Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner (2007) 6 SCC 186, Suman Verma V. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 58 and Faqruddin V. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on record as well as the judgment passed on by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable as it is a settled principle of law that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and it does not confer any title over the property and this is only for the fiscal purposes. My view is further fortified by a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Bhan (Supra), wherein, it is observed and held that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of- rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have 4 only “fiscal purpose”, i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court.

10. Moreover, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Dei and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner Garhwal Mandal and Others, decided on 21.11.2020 in WPMS No.73 of 2013 has held that it is a settled law that the proceedings under Sections 34 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act, are summary in nature and any adjudication which is made on the same, does not decide a title of the parties litigating over an issue for getting themselves to be recorded in the revenue records. The relevant paras are extracted herein as below:- “2. It is the settled law that the proceedings under Sections 34 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act, are summary in nature and any adjudication which is made on the same, does not decide a title of the parties litigating over an issue for getting themselves to be recorded in the revenue records. Rather to the contrary, the Law contemplates that any entries which are made as a consequences of the orders passed under the proceedings which are provided under Sections 34 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act, would only be having a fiscal affect because it only determines the entitlement of the State and liability of a person/revenue holder, to ensure the remittance of the Land Revenue, payable towards the land which was the subject matter of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. Hence, it has been consistently held by the High Courts, that no Writ Petition, as against the aforesaid judgments would be maintainable before the High Court. Some of the judgments, the reference of which has been made by the counsel for the respondents in relation to the aforesaid subject, have been reported in 2004 (97) RD 696, Smt. Manorma Devi and others vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and others; 2002 (93) RD 510, Smt. Gyan Mati Vs. Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Basti Division and others; 1996 (6) SCC 223, Sawarni (Smt) vs. Inder Kaur (Smt) and others as well as 1999 (4) A.W.C. 3038, Smt. Rani Devi vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow and others.

3. In view of the aforesaid ratio, it has been consistently held by the Courts, that, any adjudication which is made in a mutation proceedings under the Land Revenue Act, 1901 would always be a subject to the provisions contained under Section 40A of the Land Revenue Act, determination made or on a denial made to record, his name in the Revenue records, under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, the effected person will have had to resort the proceedings of instituting the regular suit for deciding their rights.” is aggrieved against if any person i.e. 5

11. In view of the above, the present writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in-limine. However, any observations as made above, will not come on the way of the petitioners if they approach a competent Court of law for adjudication of their rights over the property in question.

12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. PN (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.09.2025 6